The Purpose : Eklavya/Arjuna

Hello readers,

The task to write on the play "The Purpose" was given to us by Mam(Vaidehi Hariyani), so that she may know what we are able to dinned, grasp, how much we are concentrating, during her ongoing lectures as "Dronacharya" wants his pupil(Arjuna) to be concentrative, while learning the art of archery. This is all about following instructions of one's guru, applying it and getting its results, no matter what the consequences would be.

.

Que.1:  

Compare and Contrast Arjun and Eklavya's Character.

Answer-1: Concerning "Arjuna" and "Eklavya's" character. They are contrasting and we can compare in many respects; Like in class, personality , traits, thoughts, skills, abilities, mannerisms, decorum and many other things. But here the theme centralizes, is "what is their purpose behind learning archery"?.

*Arjuna, who belongs to 'upper-class', has a trainer in the form of 'Dronacharya', has everything surrounded what an upper- class fellow requires. While on the other side, Eklavya belongs to lower-class, lost his father and in the hope of mastering archery from "Dronacharya"(gurujee). The former's purpose of mastering archery is to "acquire fame and name"(self-centred) while the latter wants to save "the deer, fawns from the wild beast", a nobler one purpose. One is following "Karmanna Swarthaha" and another "Karmanna Uttamaha".

*When gurujee makes Arjuna to learn archery, he is lacking in grasping power and concentration, while behind 'Dronacharya' stands  Eklavya, who learns the four elements, which Dronacharya was explaining to Arjuna those are ; to attempt archery with "correct movements" , "ability to concentrate" , "a deep and fervent love for guru" and "guru's whole-hearted willingness to teach his pupil".. Here "Eklavya" is able to master all those skills, told by gurujee but lacking in acquiring 'his guru's whole-hearted willingness" which will lead him to master 'bowmanship'.

*One learns under the surveillance of his guru, while another by placing great faith on his guru and making his clay idol in front of him, so it can make him realise, that "never mind, if he isn't able to gain his guru's actual attention, but his guru is with him metaphorically. One masters without gurujee, and is able to attain mastery, while the another inspite of being with his guru, lacking in mastering the art of archery. Arjuna isn't as skillful in bowmanship as Eklavya is, and as it is happening that when a student or someone working under someone fails in something, the credit is attributed to teacher or someone under whom one has learnt or studied something. The same happens in "Dronacharya and Arjuna's case" . When Arjuna came to know that 'Eklavya is far more better in archery than him and as appreciated by gurujee, that... 

"He is far more better from my stretched imagination, and better than him and also than Arjuna"

*He asks gurujee in turn that "what will be about the promise, which he had kept to him that 'he would be the greatest archer of the world". While altogether the case has become different from what it was earlier. When "Eklavya" was pleading in front of  "Dronacharya" to teach him archery, and as Arjuna, being arrogant, fearful and insecure that ..

"if this little nishada man will learn and become the greatest archer, then what will become of him".

*Here also we see, while the both are conversing with each other "the contrasting thoughts", one is following rationalism and another is becoming emotional. One is lacking in faith in his ownself, while the other encounters with great faith in himself. "As Arjuna opposes his guru, not to teach the nishada 'an art of archery'. When at last "Dronacharya" is accused by Arjuna, that he hasn't fulfilled his promise, as he isn't the greatest archer as Eklavya is. There Eklavya, to exonerate his loving guru from the accusation, cuts his thumb so he couldn't be able to feat the shaft from the bow from now onwards and  Arjuna can be the master of 'bowmanship'. Arjuna seems to be the subaltern, regarding his thoughts as he due to his inability accuses "Dronacharya" while "Eklavya" seems to be subaltern to the readers or audiences of the play, ere in literal sense , he isn't, by comparing 

With Arjuna or it differs from person to person. We see here that what "Arjuna" has acquired isn't on his own, but by crushing "Eklavya's emotions, feelings, desires, faith, hopes and dreams under his feet, as he wants him not to flourish more than him and as he is "nishada" and a subaltern, he should eat, what he throws in front of him like a dog or an animal is treated by his master.

For Example: *Robinson Crusoe: Robinson Crusoe treats  Friday(effeminacy), though in some measure positively, but to prevent someone from gaining something or impose on someone what one wants, is crime.

                          *As it was condition of humans before "Queen Victoria" came to the throne, reflected in "Victorian age:social unrest" before "the slavery bill was abolished in 1833".

Hence both can be contrasted and compared in this manner, concerning their all aspects of living life.

Q.2: What is Subaltern? Who do you think is the Subaltern in this play? Explain with examples.

Answer-2: A subaltern is a person, who is below one's hierarchy, concerning political, imperialism, colonialism, statical, cultural, thinking(invisibly), abilities and skills concerning this play.

As also it is a term coined  by 'Antonio Gramsci' for the excluded societals from social groups also  'Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak' asks that..  

"can the subaltern speak"?

"Are they heard"?

*Invisibly if we see, we are to see that "Arjuna has become subaltern, as when he knew that "Eklavya" also wants to be the greatest archer. He doesn't allow him, and considers him inferior and also in deep feels insecure, fearing that 'if this nishada would become greater than him, then what would become of himself'. But didn't think that everyone has his right to perform, whether he/she belongs to upper-caste or lower-caste and when there is healthy competition, then and then only something new can be generated or make degenerated. If he had thought in that way, then perhaps his thoughts won't be considered as sprinkled with subalternity. He reflects in this play emotionality  while Eklavya, rationality with critical thinking. T.P. kailasam's bohemian aspect is also reflected in this play by Eklavya.

Where we can find, when one is excluded from the society one can either be subaltern(who easily succumbs to any situation, considering it as his fate, destined by God,  but never attempts to change it). Concerning the writer "T.P. Kailasam, he himself come out with "I don't care" and "taking easy" policy, which seems the characteristics of the "Bohemian personality". As it is his self-chosen path, he is strong enough to tread upon it(can be considered subaltern but in positive way) also some traits of the writer can be fairly seen in "Eklavya" in "The Purpose".

*While evaluating with 'Antonio Gramsci's' point of view, here as Eklavya belongs to lower-class, he can be considered as 'subaltern', while Arjuna has upperhand on him.

*Dronacharya can also be considered as "subaltern".Though he had promised Arjuna that he will make him the great artist but when the things weren't working in his way, and when he knew the contrasting approaches of 'Eklavya' as well as 'Arjuna', the ball was in his court. He would have come out but he didn't do till the end, and his dumbness cost "Eklavya" to abandon his thumb. He can be said "as victimised by Arjuna".

*while evaluating with "Gayatri chakravorty's question" that if they are heard or not? We see here that 'Eklavya' isn't heard till the end, even he sacrifices his thumb. It is his will power that helps him to resist, otherwise  he wouldn't  have been able to master archery. Dronacharya knows who is right and who is wrong but lacks  in decisive power, says allegorically, but cannot openly appreciate "Eklavya" for his greatness, love towards him and his achievements.

*Concerning places, we see that Eklavya lives in forest and obviously Arjuna in palace, also sees reflection of colonialism, statical and cultural thinking.

Thus we see here, how subalternity is reflected in "Arjuna, Dronacharya, Eklavya and in some respects also in Bheeshma".

Q.3: 

Write your views about Education system in India with reference to Past and Present time.

Ancient vs. Modern
education system

*In ancient times, there was a gurukul system(title of the type of school itself suggests intimacy between guru and his disciples) 'guru means teacher' and 'kul means family' , where gurus were requested to teach one's child, they had strong bondage with nature and life, interlaced with one another,where they were teaching from Sanskrit to holy-scriptures.

For example: "Didi movie" starring Sunil dutt, where there is school system but the atmosphere created by Sunil dutt among students is almost as gurukul. "Apne watan mein"(a patriotic song).

*With the advent of 'modern education system' in 1830, by "Thomas Abington", the gurukul system was changed to physical structure of schools/classrooms, where instead of Sanskrit/holy scripture books "English language, Mathematics, Science, Metaphysical, Philosophy etc. subjects were introduced. Nature was interchanged with artificial.

*Talking on the contemporary system, now education system in India has been professionalised. Where everywhere there are coaching centres, though students study in schools but they are served with limited information, so that they may attempt for coaching classes. While in many honorary schools, they are generating their own tution classes and child's parents won't even dare to ask them any question about their serving manner, concerning specifically with school. At the other side many in India, are now going abroad to acquire qualitative education, for which India is lacking.

(For example: the protagonist of "Article-15").

*That if their children is to require to have extra tution classes, then what he is taught in the school? 

*Are they knowingly serving in bit? 

*What is the difference between school or tution education system?

*What is important then, school or tution? 

*Why there is partial system of teaching method in both, school and tution, while dealing with the same curriculum?

For example: If in ancient times we have "Didi and many Indian movies similarises this". We also have in contemporary times, the contrasting concept of education, reflected in "super 30". At one side coaching classes, which earns hefty fees from upperclass folks and at another side, an initiative taken by "Anand Kumar" to give education free of cost, especially to economically, socially and financially backward classes.

While in this play "The Purpose" by  T. P. Kailasam, we see the same ancient method of intimacy between guru and shishya, but serves treatment with partiality.

Hence the education system in India is contrasted at ancient, medieval level and also in contemporary times.

Q.4: 

Is Dronacharya an ideal teacher? If yes, then how? and If No, then Why? Explain with examples

.

Answer-4: He can be considered "as an ideal teacher for Eklavya" as he loves to learn archery under him, pleads in front of him, only allow him to come where he is teaching archery to Arjuna, so that he can learn only by observing. But as Dronacharya has made promise to Arjuna that 'he will made him the greatest archer of the world', how he can break his promise and turn to Eklavya, who is almost a "Nishada". But he doesn't have any intention of treating in partial way with either of them, but is compelled before the man made culture.

 

Serving style of Dronacharya

*While on contradictory Arjuna has least concerned with this emotions. As throughout the play, he only remembers his promise, given to him by gurujee that he would made him 'the greatest archer of the world' as breaking promise is perceived as committing crime, and arises doubts that if with his instructions 'Eklavya' is able to learn archery then why he isn't? So intentionally, he wants to say that gurujee is lacking somewhere. He always reminds his guru that he is assigned a work to do and if he hasn't finished it at stipulative time, then it would alternate it's meaning.

*Dronacharya knows internally that "Uttamaha" is only Eklavya and Arjuna is concerned with "Karmanna Swarthaha". As he is concerned with the latter, he is unable to learn the correct movements, lacks in concentration and subsequently in loving his guru. Seems as he lives in fantasy of transformed into the greatest archer, while the guru denies him to stuff his head with such fantastical thoughts, and it would be best for him if he would concentrate on the present task without fantasizing anything about future.

 

*If Dronacharya had given acceptance to 'Eklavya's cherish desire to become the greatest archer under him' the case would be at the peak of idealisation. But as he lost his moral sense and as he was indecisive in his judgement, in what to do? He would have selected both of them, maintained equilibrium between them but it can be supposed that perhaps if he would be able to do so but he wasn't allowed to as his voice was suppressed under mighty heavy feet of mightier personalities, where speaking against is considered as crime. His mental psychology seems to be very strong and pure, as being an indecisive one can be easily succumbed to 'enantiodromia'. But he isn't succumbing. While knowing how to differentiate between the two ideal concepts.

Seeing from 'Eklavya's perspective' he can be considered as "ideal gurujee" while looking from 'Arjuna's perception' he can be considered as mere trainer, whose work is to train him anyhow, at any cost.

Hence it is all about a person's perception, what one person looks from one's perspective can be considered as  true, while on the another side it can be considered as 'flawy one' . So is the difference between 'Eklavya' and 'Arjuna's  perception'

(the trap metaphor is applicable here:seeing and knowing).

Q.5: 

Write something about your experience like Eklavya or Arjuna with any

 teacher during your study phase till now. (Not necessary to mention any name)

Answer-5:  Throughout my entire educational journey, I encountered many teachers. As it is said, 'along with good something bad exists', same was happened with me. I had many teachers in my life, and majority of them were true to their duty, quite talented, believing in perseverance and co-operative by nature, while there was only one, who was a "unique example of the best teacher", who taught me, never place trust on strangers, who knows they will try to bite you, of which you haven't even thought of. But I must say perhaps it is always "God's grace upon me that how  worst the situation is or the people are, I am always able to find my way out". No matter how difficult it was.

*Also as advised by my mother, not to evaluate people, "kamiyaan Apne AAP mein dhoondo, kisi aur mein nahi". Capturing this quote in my mind,  I advanced  in my life further.

Hence bitter and fruitful experiences are interwoven with each other, no-one can deny this truth of life and it is part and parcel of everyone's life.

Works citations: 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._P._Kailasam

Various critical approaches from handbook

Slide share- vaidehi Hariyani and Heenaba zala 

"The Purpose" - T.P. Kailasam